Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Největší Čech


 * 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) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    16:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Největší Čech

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 05:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and interesting topic. The article is not just a list and is expandable, as the competition attracted the attention of almost all major Czech media. An interesting detail: The Czech Television decided to exclude Jára Cimrman (a fictional character and a very popular "genius" appearing in the plays of Jára Cimrman Theatre) from the poll. A non-existent personality received tens of thousands of votes and there was a danger that Cimrman would win the whole poll:) Source: Mladá fronta DNES (in Czech). I don't think it is a copyright problem, the result (the names) of this poll contains additional explanatory information which is not copied from any copyrighted source, as far as I know. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. As explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio at all.  If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like.  The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) is set forth at the above-indicated AfD.  See also (with the same conclusion) Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.
 * I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of PRODs and 2 dozen AfDs today by the same nom, of many most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Only one independent ref. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Keep as per refs by Vejvančický, conditional on a native speaker confirming that those are what they appear to be and that at least some are reasonably independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the missing citations. I believe that this problem is now resolved. The articles provides an interesting insight into the cultural and historical awareness of the Czech society in the 21st century. The information is verifiable and there's no benefit for Wikipedia in deleting this kind of information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think that in the case of Vej -- who has not rebutted the assumption of good faith -- we would assume that "those are what they appear to be".--Epeefleche (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't meaning to cast doubt on Vej, I was meaning to make it clear that I couldn't evaluate those links in any meaningful sense. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. The convention that I have noticed, when I've worked with foreign language-sourced articles at AfD, is that oftentimes (if the editor is in good standing, senior, and has not done things that lead one to consider that they have rebutted the assumption of good faith, is that other editors say:  "Foreign language sources accepted on the basis of AGF".  Except for the fact Vej is a sysop, I see little reason to not believe him.  (satire, if that was not clear).  Other times, editors run the sources through googletranslate, to assess for themselves.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your uncertain confidence, Epeefleche :D The English Wikipedia is a modern Babel tower and G-translate is often the only tool suitable for checking non-English texts. Of course, the automatic translation is imperfect, but usually you can find some sense in it. I use it on daily basis. Btw, you can find a list of articles related to the poll at the official website of the project (Czech Television). They don't link the articles directly, but I think the information is reliable and verifiable (they always mention the original source). I remember the poll, it was widely discussed in the Czech media. The Czechs showed a good sense of humor; they voted for a non-existent crazy "genius" Jára Cimrman, who is a real legend in my country. Unfortunately, the sophisticated and refined humor of this character is hardly translatable to any language. It is too firmly connected with the Czech language. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Vej -- my pleasure. I am, as you might have guessed, thinking back to the quote of Lord Acton.  Which, as luck would have it, is doubly appropriate to consider here, as we look at lists of "the Greatest".  He wrote:  "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."  Of course, this is only a tendency, and I see nothing in your history to suggest other than that you have managed to avoid it.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, as for the other similar nominations. It's not copyvio, as has been shown pretty thoroughly. As for the nom's argument, we have no such policy. If the list is cited elsewhere, it's notable under our ordinary guidelines.  DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, I note that at Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent.  He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement .... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."


 * Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable.  As to notability, I agree with the majority of the editors who have commented on this page that sufficient notability has been evidenced.  I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.


 * Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2011 (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.