- 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. – Joe ( talk) 20:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Myši Natálie Mooshabrové ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 18:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 21. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 18:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a bot article, although its creator was subsequently banned as a sockpuppet. @ Shadowowl:, did you check the corresponding article in the Czech Wikipedia before nominating this article? The Czech article includes a link to a review that I have now added to the English article. More references probably exist. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- These are bot articles given the fact that the creator made these with a speed of up to 9 articles per minute. -- » Shadowowl | talk 19:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)
19:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- @
Eastmain:The reference you added, i.e. the review at
[1], was written by someone named Uživatel Dooren, who read the book, and wrote about it there in 2004.
Take a look at who that Uživatel Dooren might be on same site: http://www.ctenar.net/uzivatele_v.php?user=user40432fdeb43a3
- What does the list tell you(?)
- What does the email hosting domain telll you(?)
- What are the termini of the Google search ["Uživatel Dooren"], and what's the collective aggregate story to all that content(?)
What does Wikipedia say about reliable sources(?)
I'd say that you claimed to have found a teapot, but it's not a teapot. -- DexterPointy ( talk) 21:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- @
Eastmain:The reference you added, i.e. the review at
[1], was written by someone named Uživatel Dooren, who read the book, and wrote about it there in 2004.
- Neutral - this does not appear to be one of Ladislav_Fuks's notable novels. -- DexterPointy ( talk) 21:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - Not so easy finding coverage of a pre-internet era book, but the old Czech periodical Slovník české prózy had an in-depth review (reprint here) and a review from 2017 in the magazine Kultura21 [2] If a book from 1970 is still getting in-depth coverage and there's a play in production based on the book decades after its publication [3], it's notable. This nom needs to end this AfD fishing expedition and only AfD articles after due-diligence determination that a topic is non-notable.-- Oakshade ( talk) 04:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- @
Oakshade: Nice job ;-)
- Can & Will you, or anyone you might know, write up this article to have encyclopedic value?and that much before our local star goes supernova. -- DexterPointy ( talk) 11:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Oakshade. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK with multiple periodical book reviews. James500 ( talk) 06:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Oakshade and Eastmain. SportingFlyer talk 07:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to Ladislav Fuks pending some sourced content that expands on the bare-bones description that is already in the Fuks article. The only content in this article apart from the name of the author and the publication date is the unsourced claim that it is a "psychological novel", which might theoretically be "true" but it is not how either cs.wiki or this source categorize it: the former says "sociální román" while the latter gives "společenský román", both of which apparently translate to social novel, not psychological novel. The article on Fuks, on the other hand, already includes a translation of the title, content that doesn't need a secondary source, that is not in this article. If I were reading about Fuks in our article on him, and clicked the link, having already read there that he wrote a book called Myši Natálie Mooshabrové in 1970, only to find out that Myši_Natálie_Mooshabrové is a novel written by Fuks in 1970, I would be genuinely annoyed: too many of the "keep" !votes in situations like this simply don't keep our final readers in mind. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
- This ignores the fact other votes have shown enough sources exist to flesh the article out, though. We don't delete stubs for being stubs. SportingFlyer talk 19:55, 23 July 2018 (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.