Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamienica przy ul. Warszawskiej 5 we Wrześni

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamienica przy ul. Warszawskiej 5 we Wrześni[edit]

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

No indication notability, per WP:NGEO. There are hundreds of thousands of rank-and-file protected objects of no particular note. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is I think the worst example of the messy articles created by the SPA editor(s) I described at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive260#New_user_using_multiple_accounts. In this case it's machine translation of pl:Kamienica przy ul. Warszawskiej 5 we Wrześni, without any copyediting. I think that the building is notable, as it is a zabytek. However, the article is a mess, and maybe, just maybe, getting this mess deleted will convince the author to stop creating socks every other day, talk back to us, or at least raise his standards a bit. PS. User:Staszek Lem: please tag your future deletions on talk with WP:POLAND or such so they can be included in our Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Article alerts or such. PS. Based on [1] and [2] I have been able to identify the source of those articles: high school students in Poland... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:Piotrus A discussion in WT:NGEO#Inherent notability of protected objects convinced me that simply because some object is protected heritage does not automatically makes it notable for wikipedia purpose. (BTW, can you express your opinion in the poll about making WP:NGEO a guideline?) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2014 (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.