Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sławomir Borewicz

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 redirect to 07 zgłoś się. The content remains available under the redirect for those who would like to merge. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sławomir Borewicz

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

This is a character that doesn't establish any kind of notability. Even if sources do exist, they would better serve the article on the television show. TTN (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TTN (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 07 zgłoś się. --EEMIV (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no assertion of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my arguments at Talk:Sławomir Borewicz. pl:Sławomir Borewicz shows that the article can be expanded; in Poland this fictional policeman is as famous as for example Dexter Morgan in modern US. Let's avoid time and place bias. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In its current state pl:Sławomir Borewicz would also be merged to the main article due to the lack of reliable secondary sources and out of universe content. G.A.S ^talk 05:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article, 07 zgłoś się until a split is necessary and reliable secondary sources have been added. There is no reason to have a separate article at this time. G.A.S ^talk 05:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the show for now. Both articles are ridiculously short. I would say delete, but there are some News and Books sources (in Polish). Abductive (reasoning) 19:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 07 zgłoś się as the best option. I have no prejudice to undoing the redirect when an editor wishes to create a sourced, start-class article about this topic. Cunard (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2009 (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.