Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detective Kalita


 * 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Detective Kalita

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator here, back in 2006 when our basic notability standards for bands and our rules about sourcing were much looser than they are today. At the time, having one independently notable member was enough, as was having one track on a compilation album -- and even if it had to be sourced better than this to get a quality class promotion, a band's own primary source website about themselves was considered enough verification in and of itself to stave off outright deletion. But given all we've learned over the intervening decade, those quite rightly aren't the rules that apply in 2016 -- the basic NMUSIC claim now has to be quite a bit stronger, as does the depth of reliable source coverage. And after searching both Google and ProQuest, pretty much the only coverage I can find now is glancing acknowledgements of their existence in articles about their record label, and even the primary source website itself is now a dead link -- which means I can't add any real sourcing, or any new substance, to bring it back up to 2016 inclusion standards. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete You have clearly stated why the article is not notable, but why don't you do a speedy delete under criteria G7? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * G7 only applies if the creator is the only substantive editor of the article, but my assessment of the article history was that I'm not. And even if we accept that I'm just being overly cautious and actually could G7 it myself on the grounds that the followup editors weren't really substantive enough to forestall that, I also agree with Squeamish's suggestion below that an article that's been around for a decade isn't really a good candidate for G7 — even as an admin who is a relatively active user of the speedy function, I would frankly almost never, except maybe occasionally in the most extenuating circumstances, use any speedy criterion to get rid of any article that had already been around for that long. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Well, Exclaim! has this bio/review/interview thing with Andy Swan, the lead from the band. Critically, it reveals that the band name-changed itself to The Michael Parks at some point. Two years later, they published this which doesn't make the band name/composition/history any clearer. Unfortunately, false positives are a nightmare here. Andy Swan is also the name of a Canadian politican who got rather a lot of press coverage (and means I can't even use Canadian sources to filter for what I want). Michael Parks is a really common name (and the most famous of them has a music career himself). I'm not finding anything encouraging in reliable sources for "Detective Kalita" or for "The Michael Parks" (that isn't that other Michael Parks!), but that doesn't mean I haven't missed them. I suspect that it might be easier to assemble a case for an article on Andy Swan that mentions his various groups, but even there, I'm coming up largely blank on independent reporting. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I don't think any six-year-old article is a good fit for CSD G7. Although this has been touched largely only by bot processing since its creation, and so satisfies the letter of the criterion, I don't feel it's strictly in line with the spirit of G7. Besides, there's never anything wrong with community input when so much could potentially have changed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per all of the above, nothing more to add. Mea culpa, I did the same in 2007 with a couple of stinkers. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2016 (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.