Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halina Buyno-Łoza


 * 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 no consensus. There is a clear "keep" majority, but "there must be sources" is a very weak argument in view of WP:V and WP:BURDEN.  Sandstein  20:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Halina Buyno-Łoza

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No claim of notability under WP:ENTERTAINER. No sources. Melmann 18:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Melmann 18:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Melmann 18:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Melmann 18:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Very borderline. Her main claim to fame, I think, is her supporting role (wife of one of two main characters) in Sami swoi, which is part of a cult trilogy and most people in Poland recognize it, and through it, her. I don't think any of her other roles are particularly memorable (I couldn't find that she played a first role in anything aside pl:Prognoza pogody (film) one minor movie). She has an entry in, which seems reliable (as in, it is maintained by a respected university, and does not cite Wikipedia as a source...). Entry in but that one may be more like a Polish IMDb. I can't find any discussion of her roles etc. in GBooks/Scholar aside of few mentions in passing (when the movies she played in are mention with cast listings). A few years ago Polish taboid reported that she was involved with the secret police and was imprisoned . If there is anything else it is not digitized. PS. The nominator incorrectly claims the article has no sources. It is undersourced, but it has some sources. Please don't make such misleading comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: It may be borderline but this is not a BLP. From the article, it appears her dealings with the secret service and later imprisonment probably led to considerable coverage in the Polish press at the time. If we keep the article, it could well be improved by those fluent in Polish.--Ipigott (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I checked Polish press (from a few years ago, it should all be online) and all I see is one tabloid article and one entry at an Internet portal. So the claim of 'considerable coverage' is not substantiated. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ipigott's reasoning. She is illustrative and emblematic of a period in Poland's history, besides per Piotrus being widely recognised in Poland. The strong probability is that additional sources exist; and if not contemporaneous press coverage of her imprisonment, then in histories of the period and of theatre in the period. Wikipedia is not well served by the removal of her article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ipigott and Tagishsimon. It is hard to assess the sources for a Polish subject whose life long pre-dates the internet, and lack of them in the article does not preclude notability. What is there now appears adequately sourced. I agree with that "Wikipedia is not well served by the removal of her article." Espresso Addict (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would like to save this article, but we need more than wishful thinking along the lines of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I looked and couldn't find any better sources. She played in one cult film trilogy as a supporting character, and that was probably the highlight of her career. Is this enough? I struggle with seeing how she meets NCREATIVE, at the same time I do concur that the entry is more helpful than harmful. She should be notable, given her age, but is she? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to see any of the of the "Keep" responses try to explain their view in light of the actual WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. I do see the argument that, on balance, this article may not be detracting from Wikipedia's overall goal, as it is not something problematic like a promo article for a company trying to pad their search rankings. But, I do not see how it meets the established criteria. I'm willing to even defer to WP:IGNORE arguments, especially in the light of the fact that any WP:RS sources that may be out there are likely to be in Polish, so improving this article may be very difficult for an average Anglophone editor, but if that's our argument, let's be transparent about it. Melmann 14:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In answer to your comment, and with due deference to , I would point out that it is highly unlikely that all the newspapers and magazines of the period have been digitized for access over the internet. It's hardly worthwhile but if this were really important we could call on librarians to look into it and would no doubt find some interesting responses. The very fact that this phototek article provides such rich coverage of her film and tv career is evidence of her notability for Polish speakers. Let's forget about the constraints of entertainment and simply keep her article alive on the basis of general notability.--Ipigott (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Indeed, you are correct. Polish literary corpus is poorly digitized, so there may be sources. The issue is we cannot assume they exist just because they might. That said, I am also fine with WP:IAR here, as the odds are there is something out there, and the subject seems to me encyclopedic based on her one major role and enduring public recognition of it, even if said recognition is poorly sourcable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The discussion currently is running along the lines of "there must be sources", but some editors have questioned that, and there have been few sources actually presented. Relisting in hopes that sources can be found to verify and establish notability.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per Eddie's relist comment. Would love to see further discussion about this point.
 * Keep If she "should be notable" according to Piotrus and is notable according to most others here then, if she does not meet our notability guidelines, the guidelines are in this case defective. The notability guidelines tell us they have occasional exceptions and to believe their criteria are infallible is to go against this aspect. I would be delighted if more sources can be found but deletion is most certainly not a good way of achieving this. Thincat (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2021 (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.