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. Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hronovka and Regnerka[edit]

Hronovka and Regnerka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. [Couldn't find additional] no third party sources [needed to pass GNG]. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Miserably fails GNG, no SIGCOV. --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdraw vote citing improvements in sourcing, thanks to Phil Bridger et al. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How are IDNES and Český rozhlas not third-party sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• What Phil Bridger said. The article may be a paltry stub, but it is sourced. Jdcooper (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Jdcooper, the article seems to be lacking references. I think it might just about scrapes WP:GNG as it currently stands. Also, the medical claims are probably a bit dubious since it is not from a medical journal. The claims fall in the realms of homeopathy. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, but there are ways of wording that. That is why they are famous, even if it's not backed up by medical research. And it's certainly not a reason to delete the article. Jdcooper (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have expanded the article a bit from the sources listed and one of the external links. Jdcooper (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable geographic feature per WP:GEOFEAT WP:GEOLAND, also appears to pass WP:GNG from Czech sources. SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:GEOFEAT only applies to artificial structures. The Czech sources (which are in Czech) are barely reliable. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  What makes them any less reliable than, say, one of the top British national newspapers and BBC Radio? And what has being in Czech got to do with anything? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Turistika is a tourist directory sort of website (fails SIGCOV), and both of the more reliable sources are updates on repairing the springs, and not any sort of significant coverage on the natural springs itself (fails SIGCOV) accompanied with photogalleries. And the quite obvious problem with sources in Czech is that it's infinitely more difficult to ascertain source content and reliability. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I can hear the noise of goalposts being moved. I was writing about your comment that the sources (and I mean the ones from iDNES and Český rozhlas that were in the article before it was nominated) are barely reliable, but then you went on to answer about significant coverage rather than reliablity. Get such concepts clear in your own mind before writing. As regards significant coverage, then how are articles about the restoration of the springs not significant coverage of the springs? And it is blindingly obvious to anyone with a half-way open mind that the sources not being in English has no bearing whatsoever on their contribution towards notability. The English Wikipedia is not just a mirror of what is available in English for free at the click of a mouse. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? Opinions can't change? Upon further consideration I elected to think that the sources were atleast more reliable that I said they were and I changed my opinion, if you want me (and every person) to mark in big, red letters everytime thay have changed their mind in order to make you aware that the the goalposts have moved, tell me and I'll let everyone know they have to, too. And fwiw, I do not possess magical lingual abilities that can parse any language with a 100% accuracy, maybe you do but there's a reason editors knowing English edit the English Wikipedia while editors knowing Czech edit the Czech. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course if your opinion that these sources are "barely reliable" has changed you should say so. How else can the closer of this discussion know that? And I'm afraid I find it just too tiresome to explain to people why sources not in English, just the same as sources that need access to an academic library to read or need other, non-linguistic, specialised knowledge to understand properly, are just as valid as those that you can find for free online in English. If you don't understand that simple point then you just don't get the idea of an encyclopedia that should give people more information than a Google search. You made a simple mistake in your first assessment of this article, and rather than change your opinion you are using confirmation bias to make more and more outlandish claims as to why this should be deleted in accordance with your knee-jerk reaction. Just stop digging. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I am not worried about the law of holes. You keep arguing ad hominem instead of talking about the point I am making. In fact, if you even understood confirmation bias you would not used it in this particular methaphor, I changed my argument instead of arguing they were reliable over and over with a set outcome in mind, that's the literal opposite of confirmation bias. It still stands that GEOFEAT does not apply but you will ignore that to argue ad hominem about why I'm saying, instead of arguing on the facts I am trying to present, even as I gave you an assessment of the sources and why they fail SIGCOV, your point is more about how I argued and the fact that I said Czech sources are more difficult to understand (for obvious reasons) than English ones, which literally any other editor can attest in reality to, unless they are Czech, which maybe you are, but I am not. G'day, I'm out. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Updated to WP:GEOLAND. Mis-typed the nomination. Furthermore the WP:GNG argument I made discusses articles not currently cited such as [1]ecky-ministerstvo.A190204_455330_hradec-zpravy_tuu] and [https://nachodsky.denik.cz/zpravy_region/oblibena-prdlavka-vytryskne-z-uplne-noveho-prameniku-20130830.html (I did a Czech-region search). SportingFlyer T·C 12:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG. I do not understand the nomination - there were two perfectly good independent, reliable sources with significant coverage in the article at the time it was brought to AfD. The article has now been expanded and other sources added, which is a bonus, but there does not appear to have been a genuine rationale for bringing it to AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  RebeccaGreen, I checked via Google and Google news and can't find any more sources. These two sources seem to only report 1 event. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Before you wrote that I had cited some more sources in the article, including a book published many years before the recent restoration of these springs. And your nomination said "no third party sources" even when there were two third-party sources staring you in the face. You can't be surprised when people express incredulity at such a nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Phil Bridger, well this was the version at nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hronovka_and_Regnerka&direction=next&oldid=833797269

  Both articles cover the same event. And I can't find any other sources talking about the the subject. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, for crying out loud, why can't anyone supporting deletion in this discussion stick to the point. The matter is simple. The version that you nominated and just linked had two third-party sources. You said it had none. That means that you either didn't look at the article before nomination or that you were lying. And how can you still not find any more sources when there are (and were before you made that statement) more cited in the article and in this discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Phil Bridger, as q said above, I think there needs to be more third party sources than what's in the article. I can't find any using Google or Google News beyond the 3 articles which all cover a single event. There edited to clarify my statement. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The book source that I cited was published in 1998, so obviously is not about an event that happened in 2013. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've cited some more sources that were published before the single event that the goalposts have now shifted to after the first four reasons offered for deletion were debunked. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2019 (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.