| Revision as of 11:25, 27 June 2006 editTyrenius (talk | contribs)37,867 edits if it can't be verified, it should be deleted.← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:17, 27 June 2006 edit undoIsotope23 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,870 edits →[]: deleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| *'''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. &mdash ] ] | <small>]</small> • <small>]</small> • <small>]</small> 08:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''': unverifiable ] 09:30, 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) | *'''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) | |||
Revision as of 15:17, 27 June 2006
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. &mdash 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)