Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Escobar

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 keep. Despite the overwhelming majority of "keep" votes, their arguments are generally extremely weak, focusing on such things as political views, personal interest in the topic, humor value, and mighty exaggerations ("worldwide recognition", "will live eternally", "impact on the world"). Many (most?) participants are users with very few local edits who appear to have wandered over from the Polish Wikipedia. That said, there's clearly nothing resembling a consensus for deletion, and closing the discussion as such would be a supervote on my part. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

San Escobar

San Escobar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(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)

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

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

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• Delete Subjective opinion of selective sources. Can be considered as a political action.Czyzyki (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Delete. Local curiosity. Temporary prank. Short-lived. Irrelevant. MOs810 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• The gaffe has received widespread international coverage so we can't delete it. I'm afraid the business with the flag and the country code and so on is a great deal less funny than the people who added it think it is. It's also possible that it might be believed ---- after all, there are people whose entire knowledge of foreign affairs comes from the US education system. We shouldn't have a separate article because the hoax content is going to keep getting re-added by comic geniuses. Smerge to Witold Waszczykowski.—S Marshall T/C 14:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep It has the potential for continued relevance, and it could be considered for deletion again in a year if the number of hits drops off. Wikipedia was my first stop to find out if this place was real or not, before Google, and others are likely to follow the same path. Let's help them. (I also agree that if it's delete, someone is likely to reinstate it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodion.rathbone (talk • contribs) 17:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep! It has some importance for the Foreign relations of Poland and the capacity (or incapacity) of the current Minister of Foreign Affairs. OnkelFordTaunus (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep An important event showing the level of competence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs is currently the ruling party in Poland. Szwedkowski (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Per above comments. This event is important to Poland's present history. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 00:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect to the article about the politician and merge the content. If the event has repercussions sufficient to establish lasting notability they would be merged into an article about those repercussions, not the country name. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 05:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge to Witold Waszczykowski per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER--> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 05:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as above comments Jan Kszywy (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Good secondary sources (e.g. online newspapers). Great societal interest. Clearly notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Natriumchloratum (talk • contribs)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A pile of primary sources (what newspapers are) about a gaffe and subsequent interest online (attributing to the many keep !votes) does not notability make. Come back in fifty years when there are responsible books (secondary sources) written that examine this. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: In response to the statement "Come back in fifty years when there are responsible books (secondary sources) written that examine this." That's not how Wikipedia works. If that were the case, we'd have to delete every article from Harambe to Bernie or Hillary?. I think you're misreading WP:NOTNEWS. "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." means that Wikipedia itself is not a first-hand source of news; that does not mean that Wikipedia may not cite outside reports of news, especially online ones. If it was necessary to cite physical books, an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia could not exist. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @BrendonTheWizard: Yes, with less than six months editing I'm sure you know all about Wikipedia. Thing is, had you kept reading you'd see that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" (emphasis mine). You say "If that were the case, we'd have to delete every article from Harambe to Bernie or Hillary?" and that's where we ought to be headed. Dear internet, Wikipedia is not a fan site where you can write about the stuff you thought was funny. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @Chris troutman: Attacking a user rather than their argument doesn't add to your argument. I wouldn't recommend using ableism to defend your point. As for WP:NOTFANSITE, it's worth noting that this rule means "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" and relates to original research, personal inventions, personal essays, and discussions. I have doubts that we are to be headed towards a Wikpedia free of users "writing about stuff they thought was funny" when Wikipedia has categories and subcategories dedicated solely to memes, fictional countries, viral content from social media, etc. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @Chris troutman: Please refrain from attacking fellow contributors personally and focus on content. --.js 09:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as per consensus. T3h 1337 b0y 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Consensus is a rationale now? I should just go onto every deletion discussion and say that. Mélencron (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think T3h 1337 b0y meant in the WP:SUPPORT sort of way, though that's how it appears. I imagine he meant that he agrees with the reasons (if there were any) that the subject is notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I think we should let T3h 1337 b0y speak for himherself rather than trying to speak for himher. Moncrief (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: Massive media coverage in Poland and abroad. Boston9 (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: I've already casted a !vote but I'd also like to add that our San Serriffe article has existed since 2003. San Serriffe, like San Escobar, is a fictitious country that originated as a news story, but by Wikipedia's guidelines has survived thirteen years of peer review and editing without being challenged for deletion and to start now would be inconsistent. San Escobar is no different and to assert that this fictional country should be deleted could arguably be considered hypocrisy. To delete both San Escobar and San Serriffe would be to start a purge against the well-established category of fictional countries. San Escobar is simply an addition to the category that it belongs in. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with the article on Witold Waszczykowski, keeping the redirect. This has received mass coverage in media, domestic and abroad, and, despite being a deletionist, i am actually reluctant to let this one go. Wojciech Pędzich (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: there's just so much media coverage that we're long past the point where it's just some random blunder of a politician. SkywalkerPL (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: do not merge. As already someone pointed out above and another person in the article talk page, there already exists San Serriffe, so if we delete this article, then what's the point of keeping the San Serriffe article? There is plenty of coverage, but I was not follwing the news, so when I wanted to find out what the fuss is about thankfully I found this wikipedia article explaining what it is. So it is a very useful article and should not be deleted.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: if random political blunders and parodies would not be notable per se, Wikipedia would have no mention of the next president of the U.S. Therefore, it all comes down to coverage, which has definitely crossed the threshold. --Oop (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)--Oop (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: does every bushism need a Wikipedia article? No. Neither does very waszczykowskism. Panek (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: - important social phenomena after a funny mistake of a MFA, certainly larger than many others artificial countries. Wulfstan (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - per BrendonTheWizard. Besides, a concept of San Escobar is so catchy, that it seems, that it won't end as a one season meme, but will remain in Polish popular culture/language/memosphere as a sign of politicians' ignorance (no matter from which party) for good. Pibwl ←« 21:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - seems to have received enough media coverage to be notable. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect to Witold Waszczykowski and Fictitious Countries. It does provide information as to what San Escobar is and how it originated. It has garnered enough attention, interest and interaction as to deserve an entry in Wikipedia, as a stand-alone or a redirect. I personally got countless invitations to join it's "official website" and needed to look it up (got to Wikipedia) to find out what it was all about. It's a massive social media phenomenon and a cultural referent now, temporary or not (how can it be predicted) and it should somehow be addressed by the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElleGreen (talk • contribs) 02:26 19 January 2016 (UTC) — ElleGreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep; do not merge to Witold Waszczykowski. It is worth noting that this article contains more content than the Witold Waszczykowski article and all references on that article are about San Escobar. If we merge this article into his, then the Witold Waszczykowski article would essentially be a San Escobar article. His article as-is is a stub compared to this one. It would arguably make more sense to merge Witold Waszczykowski into San Escobar, though I would not and do not advocate for that either. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @BrendonTheWizard:, how many votes are you going to cast? PuchaczTrado (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I've struck out your additional !votes; please only vote once. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
      • These were intended to be separate arguments, not votes. I did this knowing that Wikipedia is not a vote. I apologize for adding "Keep" each time, they were intended to add to the discussion rather than act as separate !votes as if they were from separate individuals. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, so I don't believe that striking them out is relevant in deciding the consensus as it is based solely on discussion. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep; do not merge to Witold Waszczykowski. San Escobar has now his own life in the media, not only in direct relation with Witold Waszczykowski'blund Alain Schneider (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. And it's SNOWing. Amisom (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep – as said above, San Escobar now lives its own life. Wipur (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Atossava 08:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Article describes an interesting social phenomenon. The information provided about a fictional country is correct. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuYCxaiObDM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skwieraw (talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - internet phenomenon Radmar (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2017 (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.