Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kryšpín's system

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Most participants plausibly argued that non-English sources exist. The alternative of merging to another article was mentioned, but not given much attention, so that might be an option for future discussion. RL0919 (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kryšpín's system

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how this is notable. I did not find anything besides Wikipedia mirrors from a basic BEFORE search. This is really more of a personal essay than an encyclopedia article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I very strongly suspect that looking for sources about a Cezch locomotive classification system used only until the 1980s using only Google in English is a fools errand. Any sources about this (which isn't like any essay I've ever seen, and seems directly equivalent to systems like DRG locomotive classification and Whyte notation, which just happen to be better documented in English) will almost certainly be offline and in Czech. Unless and until someone has attempted to find sources in the place those sources are likely to be then we simply cannot fairly judge the notability of the topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We absolutely can "judge" on a dead link only and an unproductive search. In the Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" section (D-#1, #2, and #3) it seems pretty clear on "due diligence" of a search. I am awed that some editors believe we can keep any article on the concept that surely there "might" be sources out there "somewhere" in the universe, so we need to wait until someone finds them. If we could do away with the silly notability criteria, of course adding Verifiability and What Wikipedia is not, we could do away with AFD also. I am sure that is not actually the idea presented in WP:BURDEN. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I am also a big train fan so if someone can find the or a source and there is no copyvio or plagiarism a HEY would be nice. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not arguing that we need to wait until someone finds sources, that would indeed by silly. What I'm arguing is that we should keep things that are both harmless and plausibly notable until someone has meaningfully attempted to find sources in the place they are most likely to exist. In this case that would be circa 1930s-1980s Czech-language sources that would plausibly write about technical aspects of railways. Declaring that sources definitely do not exist because they weren't found by searching Google in English is as ridiculous as declaring the Tuskegee Railroad non-notable because there are no immediately accessible online sources about it in Czech. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete It would be easy enough to source any given railroad's locomotive classification system; the question is whether we need separate articles on each of them. Every fan of the respective railroad knows that a K is 4-6-2 on the Pennsy, and a Q is a 2-8-2 on the B&O, and a Y is a 2-8-8-4 on the N&W, but are these systems notable in themselves? At best it seems to me that a section in the railroad's article is all that's required, if that. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe this reads like an argument to merge rather than to delete? Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not appropriate to merge something with zero sources, that doesn't even meet WP:V. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe explicitly addressed sourcing in their comment. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't meet WP:V. For all we know this could be a hoax. All I'm asking for is proof this system exists. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is still not relevant to whether Mangoe's rationale supports deletion or merging. Have you attempted to look for Czech language sources or are you still declaring that Googling in English is sufficient? Thryduulf (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not totally adverse to merging though I tend to think that these systems are a little too in-depth for most railroad articles. Mangoe (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose I look for Czech sources, considering I don't speak a word of the language? There's doing a reasonable BEFORE search, and then there's unreasonable demands. Should I try to look for sources in every language before I nominate anything for AfD? If we can't find even a single source in English about the subject, what are we supposed to do? It would be great if a Czech speaker helped out, but I don't happen to know any. Again, this fails WP:V, and that's not just about Mangoe's rationale, that's about whether this content should exist on Wikipedia at all. We don't violate policies just because we feel like something is notable, if there's no proof of its existence. Doing otherwise is how we end up with hoaxes in mainspace that last for years. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings you are demanding other editors find sources, on a deadline if your choosing, so why object when others ask you to put some effort in first? It is perfectly reasonable to ask someone to look for sources in the native language as part of a BEFORE search, or at least reach out to speakers of that language and ask them - did you do that? You could ask at, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Czech Republic, or an editor in category:User cs, or maybe someone at Talk:Rail transport in the Czech Republic, or possibly somewhere on the Czech Wikipedia. It seems that you have assumed that because there is nothing in English on Google that it's entirely unverifiable and insist that other editors prove you wrong without having made any serious effort to determine verifiability or notability yourself - that is not reasonable behaviour.

If a topic is contemporary, of broad interest and an English language speaking area then it's reasonable to assume that if there is nothing on Google in English then it's not verifiable (even though it isn't always true), however the further you get away from that the less reasonable the assumption becomes - when the topic is a niche subject that ceased to be current in the 1980s when the country was behind the iron curtain it's not at all a reasonable assumption to make. WP:BEFORE requires you to make a reasonable effort to find sources, and part of that is looking where sources are most likely to exist. If you've tried and failed, then document that, but if you don't try then don't act surprised when others call you out - particularly when a not insignificant proportion of your effort on the project is put in to deleting the work of others. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As part of NPP, I AfD a lot of things. And when I remove unsourced material from articles, I am improving the encyclopedia, and WP:BURDEN fully backs my doing so. Call me a deletionist if you'd like to, but these activities are a necessary part of maintaining the encyclopedia. And no new page reviewer would approve this article. Furthermore, you should be well aware that I spend a significant amount of time creating new content - I just had a TFA the other day, and my content creations are publicly visible on my userpage. Your smears are both hurtful and false. If you're so damn sure it's notable, how about finding even a single example of coverage? I conducted a reasonable, good faith BEFORE search. You are making ridiculous demands of patrollers. There's over 10,000 articles in the NPP backlog - if we all did as you seem to expect, nothing would ever get reviewed. But sure, complain about how all I do is delete other people's work - it shows you're incapable of objectivity here. You are part of the problem by impeding efforts to clean up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the past year, I've made 15 GAs and 2 FAs. You've made zero of either. Don't lecture me about how I don't care about content. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Czech wiki references the following: [1] Mangoe (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is much literature devoted to this locomotive marking system. These are only books written in Czech or Slovak. It may seem to you that this topic is insignificant, but the opposite is true. --MIGORMCZ (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Example: Palát, Hynek (2011). "Označování parních lokomotiv". Parní lokomotivy ČSD (in Czech). Brno: Computer Press. pp. 62–65. ISBN 978-80-251-3641-6. MIGORMCZ (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before: I will not argue that a new page, without any egregious problems and with some presumption of notability, should be given latitude. It looks like this article was created July 2, 2006. It seems that is a lot of latitude. The criterion for searching for sources, to advance notability as a deciding factor for an article, I don't think is vague. Nominating article(s) for deletion gives some guidance. subsection B, subsection C-#1: Can any sources be found so we edit the article? Subsection D: 1 (minimum search), 2 (The Wikipedia Library), and 3 (completed basic due diligence). With only 13 edits from June 2006 until March 2008 I don't see enough to give credit that there is no plagiarism or copyright violations. The editor created the unsourced 471, ČD Class 471 and ČSD Class T 478.4 both with one inline citation, and I can only assume so much good faith. The subject may very well be notable but for an article to be created there has to be some degree of following policies and guidelines. Wikipedia:Verifiability (policy): In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. It seems arguing "Keep" with a weak rational is equivalent to stating "I firmly believe this article is notable.", which is among "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". -- Otr500 (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly unlikely to be a hoax given there's a Czech Wikipedia article on it and sources cited there. I came across this article which lists three further sources at the bottom (though I haven't accessed these). Garuda3 (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been nice if you would have accessed (and listed) the three sources. At present liking an article or seeming to surmise the subject is valid does not advance notability. Otr500 (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Czech article has 2 web sources (using GTranslate), second one says to see paragraph 6. It also has 2 links to Czech railway encyclopedias, I'm assuming they discuss the classification system. I don't have access to the Czech books, but assume good faith. This ISBN 978-80-251-3641-6 and this one 978-80-86116-13-6. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.