Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goniec Polski


 * 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 No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔   06:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Goniec Polski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In three years since the notability template was added, no further information suggesting this newspaper (company) is notable was added. As written, it clearly fails Notability (companies) and Notability (media). Was deprodded few months ago by User:Adamt with an edit summary "It is very important for the Polish community magazine" which is nothing but WP:ASSERTN. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You have submitted an article in the Polish language Wikipedia, where articles remained. The magazine is a permanent part of the cultural of the Polish community in the UK. Your next application falls under WP: POINT--Adamt (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Polish Wikipedia voted to keep the article is irrelevant here. Polish Wikipedia has very loose rules about what is notable and for better and worse is much more inclusionary. There, an unreferenced argument about importance is often enough to result in a keep. English Wikipedia has many more rules and is stricter at observing them. Among others, it's not enough to say that something is important. You have to show that it is notable, and those are not the same thing. See also WP:ASSERTN and WP:VALINFO - I see those arguments often on pl wiki, but on en wiki they are explicitly NOT VALID. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Contrary to appearances in the Polish language Wikipedia is the same :) Shitting me WP (base) though you know you do not know all the local rules :) I will not defend the article, this is your plot and I do not know enough English.--Adamt (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 15:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.