 | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This article is being considered for deletion edit
This article is apparently marked for deletion, yet it mentions San Serriffe, article that exists for more than 13 years. You can see the obvious? If San Serriffe exists for 13 years, then anyone who wants to delete this article, but didn't mark San Serriffe for deletion is just hypocrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanEscobar (talk • contribs) 07:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- @SanEscobar: Yes, you're right. BTW, the resolution was keep, so it's OK. --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 20:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Merge? edit
An error. A funny error that caught the fancy of the media; briefly. Three months later it looks like a classic WP:NOTNEWS, encyclopedic topic. I tagged it for notability, but it probably makes sense to merge it to a short section on Witold Waszczykowski.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's fine the way it is IMO. I removed the notability template you placed because it doesn't apply. There are 18 refs, many in depth, to the Le Journal de Montréal and the New York Times and Gazeta Wyborcza and other major publications. So it already meets the WP:GNG. That doesn't mean it can't be deleted on other grounds. But the notability tag is not for "I, personally, think this article is silly" or whatever. It's for articles that don't meet the GNG. Herostratus (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)