| Revision as of 08:57, 27 June 2006 editYom (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,371 edits keep← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:47, 22 March 2023 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,667,846 editsm Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (10x)Tag: Fixed lint errors | ||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result of the debate was '''delete'''. Without ], the "57,000" claim may as well be 57. This article suffers from total verifiability failure. The top result of a Google search for '"helena jaworska" -wikipedia' is a genealogy website. '"Tę Jedną Noc" helena jaworska', a search for what was supposedly her one 'hit', turns up nothing, the less specific '"Tę Jedną Noc" helena' turns up 6 unique non-Wiki hits, none of which appear to be talking about a song (note that Helena is supposedly the name of the album). Arguments to keep based on those claims to notability consequently carry little weight. | |||
| If references are found, there is no prejudice against the article being recreated with verified information. I will of course restore the content on request if that happens. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Considered nominating as Speedy per ], but there is (barely) enough in the article to suggest there might be ''some'' degree of importance or significance. However, this person was a one-hit wonder who sold 57,000 copies of her first album, which was released in 1990. The follow-up only sold 9,000. I'd say '''delete''', but think it should be opened up for discussion. ] 00:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | Considered nominating as Speedy per ], but there is (barely) enough in the article to suggest there might be ''some'' degree of importance or significance. However, this person was a one-hit wonder who sold 57,000 copies of her first album, which was released in 1990. The follow-up only sold 9,000. I'd say '''delete''', but think it should be opened up for discussion. ] 00:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''', according to your own description she meets ]. Misplaced Pages isn't only for extremely popular musicians. Two albums selling several thousand copies a piece is more than many groups can claim, and we have verifiable data about her, so there's no real reason to delete. The musicians that we delete are the bands that practice out of someone's garage and have no information out there about them, making articles about them unverifiable. ] (]/]) 00:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''', according to your own description she meets ]. Misplaced Pages isn't only for extremely popular musicians. Two albums selling several thousand copies a piece is more than many groups can claim, and we have verifiable data about her, so there's no real reason to delete. The musicians that we delete are the bands that practice out of someone's garage and have no information out there about them, making articles about them unverifiable. ] (]/]) 00:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Follow-up''': I know ] is out there, but it's not policy, and I couldn't verify any of the criteria that are on that guideline. (My bad - I did fail to mention I could not verify any of the information in this article. Maybe someone who speaks Polish can). ] 01:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | **'''Follow-up''': I know ] is out there, but it's not policy, and I couldn't verify any of the criteria that are on that guideline. (My bad - I did fail to mention I could not verify any of the information in this article. Maybe someone who speaks Polish can). ] 01:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' per nom—she had a hit, and this makes her notable. ] 01:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *<s>'''Keep'''</s> per nom—she had a hit, and this makes her notable. ] 01:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Per later discussion—if it can't be verified, it should be deleted. If it can be verified, then keep. ] 11:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''', one-hit wonders are notable and do meet ]. --''']''' <small>]</small> 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''', one-hit wonders are notable and do meet ]. --''']''' <small>]</small> 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Weak keep''' Meets ] and is a one-hit wonder as well. However, the absence of any verification is a concern to me. --< |
*'''Weak keep''' Meets ] and is a one-hit wonder as well. However, the absence of any verification is a concern to me. --<span style="background:gold;">]]</span>] 02:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Weak keep''' as per ]. ] 03:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Weak keep''' as per ]. ] 03:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment'''. I have real problems in verifying this. A Google search comes up with nothing to verify this article. . I would suggest keeping the article if we could verify it. At the moment, I can't. ] 03:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Comment'''. I have real problems in verifying this. A Google search comes up with nothing to verify this article. . I would suggest keeping the article if we could verify it. At the moment, I can't. ] 03:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :It might be because she is from Poland and not from an English-speaking country (seeing as the Internet is predominantly English). < |
:It might be because she is from Poland and not from an English-speaking country (seeing as the Internet is predominantly English). <span style="color: Green;">—</span>''']''' 03:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Weak delete''', not on grounds of notability (if the statements made are true, she's easily notable enough), but on grounds of unverifiability. Can anyone provide a (printed or digital, Polish or English or anything else) source for these claimed sales figures? –] ] 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Weak delete''', not on grounds of notability (if the statements made are true, she's easily notable enough), but on grounds of unverifiability. Can anyone provide a (printed or digital, Polish or English or anything else) source for these claimed sales figures? –] ] 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' for no reason to delete. ] 07:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' for no reason to delete. ] 07:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :*'''Comment''' it isn't verified, which means it breaks policy... which is a good reason to nominate this for deletion.--] 15:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' per ]; she's notable. Verifiability may be difficult, but it's not impossible. &mdash ] ] | <small>]</small> • <small>]</small> • <small>]</small> 08:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per ]; she's notable. Verifiability may be difficult, but it's not impossible. — ] ] | <small>]</small> • <small>]</small> • <small>]</small> 08:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''': unverifiable ] 09:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak Delete''' I agree that one hit wonders meet ], but doesn't it seem strange that there is no ] page on the Polish Misplaced Pages? --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 10:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' per lack of ] sourcing. If someone can find a source for the "one-hit wonder" claim I am willing to change to keep per ]. Without sourcing this should be removed.--] 15:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' ] due to ]. ] 15:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' per NScheffey and lack of verification. ] 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak Keep''' per ]. The creator of the article appears to have made a few contributions on Polish pop groups. I think he or she could easily verify it, but unfortunately he or she has been AWOL from Misplaced Pages since January. Perhaps we can get some assistance from other Polish Wikipedians? ] 00:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak Keep''' notable, but not very. ]-] 16:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 10:47, 22 March 2023
- 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 of the debate was delete. Without verification, the "57,000" claim may as well be 57. This article suffers from total verifiability failure. The top result of a Google search for '"helena jaworska" -wikipedia' is a genealogy website. '"Tę Jedną Noc" helena jaworska', a search for what was supposedly her one 'hit', turns up nothing, the less specific '"Tę Jedną Noc" helena' turns up 6 unique non-Wiki hits, none of which appear to be talking about a song (note that Helena is supposedly the name of the album). Arguments to keep based on those claims to notability consequently carry little weight.
If references are found, there is no prejudice against the article being recreated with verified information. I will of course restore the content on request if that happens. --Sam Blanning 12:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Helena Jaworska
Considered nominating as Speedy per A7, but there is (barely) enough in the article to suggest there might be some degree of importance or significance. However, this person was a one-hit wonder who sold 57,000 copies of her first album, which was released in 1990. The follow-up only sold 9,000. I'd say delete, but think it should be opened up for discussion. Agent 86 00:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, according to your own description she meets WP:MUSIC. Misplaced Pages isn't only for extremely popular musicians. Two albums selling several thousand copies a piece is more than many groups can claim, and we have verifiable data about her, so there's no real reason to delete. The musicians that we delete are the bands that practice out of someone's garage and have no information out there about them, making articles about them unverifiable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Follow-up: I know WP:MUSIC is out there, but it's not policy, and I couldn't verify any of the criteria that are on that guideline. (My bad - I did fail to mention I could not verify any of the information in this article. Maybe someone who speaks Polish can). Agent 86 01:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Keepper nom—she had a hit, and this makes her notable. Tyrenius 01:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Per later discussion—if it can't be verified, it should be deleted. If it can be verified, then keep. Tyrenius 11:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)- Keep, one-hit wonders are notable and do meet WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep Meets WP:MUSIC and is a one-hit wonder as well. However, the absence of any verification is a concern to me. --Siva1979 02:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep as per User:Siva1979. Pascal.Tesson 03:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I have real problems in verifying this. A Google search comes up with nothing to verify this article. . I would suggest keeping the article if we could verify it. At the moment, I can't. Capitalistroadster 03:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- It might be because she is from Poland and not from an English-speaking country (seeing as the Internet is predominantly English). —EdGl 03:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete, not on grounds of notability (if the statements made are true, she's easily notable enough), but on grounds of unverifiability. Can anyone provide a (printed or digital, Polish or English or anything else) source for these claimed sales figures? –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for no reason to delete. MichaelBillington 07:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment it isn't verified, which means it breaks policy... which is a good reason to nominate this for deletion.--Isotope23 15:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:MUSIC; she's notable. Verifiability may be difficult, but it's not impossible. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 08:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: unverifiable Fram 09:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete I agree that one hit wonders meet WP:MUSIC, but doesn't it seem strange that there is no Helena Jaworska page on the Polish Misplaced Pages? --Nscheffey 10:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of WP:V sourcing. If someone can find a source for the "one-hit wonder" claim I am willing to change to keep per WP:MUSIC. Without sourcing this should be removed.--Isotope23 15:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOR due to WP:VER. Ste4k 15:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per NScheffey and lack of verification. Universitytruth 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per User:Siva1979. The creator of the article appears to have made a few contributions on Polish pop groups. I think he or she could easily verify it, but unfortunately he or she has been AWOL from Misplaced Pages since January. Perhaps we can get some assistance from other Polish Wikipedians? BrownHornet21 00:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep notable, but not very. Wikibout-Talk to me! 16:18, 28 June 2006 (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.