Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branicki Residential House - Smolna 40

:{{la|Branicki Residential House - Smolna 40}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Branicki_Residential_House_-_Smolna_40 Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Branicki Residential House - Smolna 40}})

Building which is possibly covered by Poland's heritage system but at this time, article is an advertising article for a hotel. scope_creep (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I've looked at it before, and yes, it was created for promotional purposes. I've removed most advertising language during my c/e a while back. While I couldn't find details of its listing as a monument, to a bit of my surprise there's media coverage that suggests this passes GNG: [http://warszawa.wyborcza.pl/warszawa/1,34889,15607354,Srodmiejska_kamienica_zmieni_sie_nie_do_poznania__ZDJECIA_.html], [http://warszawa.wyborcza.pl/warszawa/1,34862,17463779,Prostackie_budki_ze_szkla__Koszmarny_projekt_dachu.html] - those are two articles from (regional addition to) major polish daily newspaper. This was also covered by regional TV news: [http://tvnwarszawa.tvn24.pl/informacje,news,odzyska-pietro-i-blask-kamienice-branickich-czeka-remont,185652.html]. Warsaw's monument department has a press release (?) on that: [http://zabytki.um.warszawa.pl/content/kontrola-inwestycji-przy-ul-smolnej-40-w-warszawie]. All of this strongly suggests IMHO that the building is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment It is absolutely beautiful, and could do with staying. scope_creep (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, I think the combination of sources indentified by Piotrus, including the listing in a historic registry, indicates a notable structure. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Seems to be under preservation order as listed monument, home of famous artist. Withdrawn by nominator scope_creep (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as a listed heritage building per WP:GEOFEAT. But rename. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep -- The article needs better citations, but it is credible. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.