Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Escobar

San Escobar

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

Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. I don't believe that every blunder of politician is notable. And when you look at the news information, their point out this article as one of main signs of this blunder notability. Therefore Wikipedia is a source for itself, and it is in fact creating the situation, not only describing it – which can be considered as a political action. Note that this article was deleted on pl wiki over a really fast and noncontroversial discussion. PuchaczTrado (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although it should be less skewed and focus more on the 'phenomenon' side of it. DFC02 (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Witold Waszczykowski. It's quite right that not all blunders or otherwise controversial statements from politicians are so notable that they deserve a separate article. But some do. This certainly is one that should be mentioned in the list of political gaffes. Most items in that list link to a (sub)section within another article where the blunder is explained. The biography of Waszczykowski would be fitting for such a solution. However, some items in the list have their very own entries, such as fuddle duddle and We begin bombing in five minutes. I guess if there is significant coverage and controversy surrounding a gaffe, it merits its own article, otherwise there may be room for it inside another article. I would certainly call the coverage significant, with national media around the world including both the NYT and TWP covering it. For me the question is rather whether it's enough for an independent article or not, and if not, I suggest the entry Waszczykowski is the best place to put it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Witold Waszczykowski. This may warrant a mention in Witold Waszczykowski's article, but this is certainly not notable enough to warrant an article. Not every blunder of a politician is notable enough for its own article. --Tdl1060 (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not just a blunder of a politician, this is a major thing that all of Poland is talking about and by now a source of uncountable memes. It has made it into the press of the whole world. 700k ghits in just 2 days should speak for themselves. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 11:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica the better place to post memes related topics? PuchaczTrado (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not the gaffe itself but the instant and wide takeup by the social media phenomenon, that makes it notable. Also widely covered in traditional media. --Lysy^talk 12:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The English article was one of the sources of German tagesschau.de, the web portal of one of Germany's most popular TV news, which reported on the San Escobar blunder on Jan 13th, 2017. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lysy - I found this via the Washington Post article and have been laughing myself silly. The amount of attention it's gotten is massive and unrelenting. Sometimes gaffes turn into a phenomenon.[1] —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ewa Maria - it is funny and explains everythink; nobody will belive San Escobar exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.186.219.240 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Witold Waszczykowski or delete; not notable on its own, likely recentism (i.e., like Liberland, likely to be forgotten quickly). Mélencron (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subjective opinion of selective sources. Can be considered as a political action.Czyzyki (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't the news - we don't have an article for every slip-up by a politician. This is an immensely forgettable, temporary thing. At the very most, some this MAY warrant a small mention in the article of the person involved, but there's no way it is worth its own article. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Witold Waszczykowski; significant internet phenomenon, has gained worldwide popularity in both social and traditional media. Additionally, it is related to the important representative of the Polish state. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolute keep. Has made a notable, newsworthy impact on the world, even if not the nominator's particular corner of it. Please note the references in the Washington Post, the BBC, and in the Guardian (that's just after a rudimentary search): [2] [3] [4] Moncrief (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the condition that fancruft like coats of arms and maps are removed, and it purely discusses the *phenomenon* of the creation. Radagast (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that it was viral for a couple of days does not justify having a permanent wiki article. Do we create an article for every kitten that goes viral on the Internet? No. This anecdote will be completely forgotten in a month. It's worth a brief mention on the politician's page, nothing more. Bluefairy en (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local curiosity. Temporary prank. Short-lived. Irrelevant. MOs810 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- The arguments "will be completely forgotten in a month." or "short-lived." are not acceptable by Wikipedia's guidelines as it forgets that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As editors to Wikipedia, we may not make edits based solely on speculation or prediction. Although this most often means that we should not make speculative changes that add to the content of an article, this also applies to edits such as removal of content based solely off of speculation.
- Evaluating its "relevance" is also a rather poor argument against having the article; we've got an entire subcategory of articles on the topic of fictional countries dedicated solely to "middle earth realms" with fifty-one articles. (point being: as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia allows readers to find articles in a range of importance; that is including but not limited to low-importance ones.)
- In the event that this article's topic does become "completely forgotten" in a month, that does not warrant its deletion. We've got several articles dedicated to various individual memes that took place only during the United States 2016 Presidential Primaries, all of which were short lived. (For example, an article is dedicated solely to the "Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash" FaceBook page)
- The article does utilize viable sources and cites them appropriately; if it is poorly written, that is subject to change without deletion.
- In the event that this becomes short-lived, the worst-case scenario is that this article lacks the attention that it during its status as "viral."
BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Witold Waszczykowski if deleted. Mr Waszczykowski is some special person for such weird events. Definitely merge to his biography. After RT-Television from Moscow interrupted the US parliament C-SPAN tv-transmission with presentation of Polish memes of San Escobar ( Indepented reports ), it must be something special, isn't?... Zboralski (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly. Has gained worldwide notable media attention. If it would be forgotten sooner or later noone can tell now, so the argument "not temporary" will only apply in the future, if it will have been forgotten then. --.js (((☎))) 11:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his has enormous potential - will live eternally and will constitute a sort of a benchmark (or rather limit) in diplomacy, not only Polish but, I daresay, worldwide. Kicior99 (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable not only because of the blunder but the worldwide recognition it is acheived since. If it's not kept then it should be a merge with Witold Waszczykowski CloudSurferUK (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]