Deletion of Polish invasion of Czech Republic

Comment: maybe also add a see also or a footnote to Polish–Czechoslovak border conflicts). Given that nobody was hurt, and it was just a local military error, I very much doubt this can pass the mentioned . , this is a minor diplomatic incident that got written up because slow news season in Europe, I guess, outside corona news, and it is related. The title is a , if it is kept, it should very much be renamed to May 2020 Czech Republic-Poland border incident. Amd frankly, if it was properly named like this originally it would likely not end up here, the current name is the gist of the problem, blowing this tiny incident out of proportion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:10YT||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EASTEREGG)

Comment: with Czech Republic–Poland relations, much as how we cover the many Swiss invasions of Lichtenstein at Liechtenstein–Switzerland relations. Though I fully expect that this would be closed as no consensus—this kind of thing is why we have /
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:DELAY||WP:RAPID)

Comment: per Toughpig. This seems to pass  and is encyclopedic enough to keep. Not everything in Wikipedia is big world-changing news but that doesn't mean it isn't notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . Agnostic on keeping versus merging, but the content (not the title) is encyclopedic and should be kept
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: per Chuka Chief. Plenty of news coverage to meet . This looks like perfect DYK fodder too. The precise naming of the article can be addressed after this AfD closes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This event is extraordinary, in the literal sense that it is extremely unusual. The delayed response is particularly striking —&nbsp;in a world of instant communication, it took them two weeks to withdraw the troops. That's an argument based on , but I think the invocation of  here is essentially a  argument. o choose one example from above, "if we cover every newspaper news pumped up to get readers" is suggesting that the story is inherently inconsequential, and therefore doesn't meet notability standards. When have we, in human history, treated sending troops into foreign countries and holding (a small piece of) foreign territory for two weeks as an inconsequential event? I am arguing that the very fact that we're treating it as a joke is itself indicative of changes in the last century of European law and practice, and I'm sorry, but that is actually (wp:)interesting. As far as notability standards go, this event has been described as an "invasion" by many reliable sources, including BBC News, NPR and Politico, and that coverage happened two weeks after the original event
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INTERESTING||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTINTERESTING)

Comment: or '''Merge with Czech Republic–Poland relations''': This is a great example of  and . It is almost certainly not even a real invasion (an act of aggression) under international law. There is absolutely no comparison between this and Zaolzie|Poland's actual invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG)

Comment: there is a precedent with such things, the several similar incidents between Liechtenstein-Switzerland relations#Incidents involving the Swiss military|Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and the standard is to merge the info to the article on diplomatic relations. However, this incident seems considerably more serious than any of the ones between those two countries, in that it seems to have caused a minor diplomatic row. Therefore, I think it has a chance of passing , to the extent it would be better to delete it later if coverage is not sustained in the slightest. If the article is kept, it should be renamed to May 2020 Czech Republic-Poland border incident or perhaps Accidental Polish invasion of the Czech Republic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:10YT)

Comment: per . This should be covered briefly in the articles on COVID-19 in these countries. Incidents where parties of European military personnel accidentally cross the border into a neighbouring friendly country are fairly common. Each time it happens there are some silly news stories about it being an "invasion", despite it being nothing of the sort. There are no lasting consequences of these accidents, except possibly for the careers of the junior officers in charge of the military force. This is just another example of this, and definitely doesn't warrant an article - much less a silly one claiming this was an "invasion" and there was an "occupation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to Czech Republic–Poland relations and briefly mention there. This is much ado about nothing, and the article title is inaccurate, as this was in no sense a real invasion.  applies. As mentioned above, Liechtenstein–Switzerland_relations#Incidents_involving_the_Swiss_military is a template for how to cover such things
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: LOL! Keep? Really? This should be deleted per , but if we decide to keep it, then the title should be changed to "Accidental invasion of the Chech Republic by Poland", as per sources.But seriously, if we cover every newspaper news pumped up to get readers' then this is not going to be the Encyclopedia anymore but a news site. :) Come on "keeper" people
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)