Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalmah

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The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). Prolog (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Kalmah

Kalmah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Placed article for discussion after PROD tag was removed without reason given. After some research into this and similar articles, I've been unable to find any apparent reliable third-party sources to use as references. There are no citations used in the article to suggest or affirm notability, and no Wikipedia articles extended or linking in appear to grant notability by legacy. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This article only links to others within Wikipedia that seem to be of the same very narrow subject and scope, and give the appearance of a self-referencing group of bombardment articles maintained by the same limited number of editors. I decided to put a few articles up for discussion versus jumping to conclusions and trying to make a wider report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datheisen (talk • contribs) 19:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keeping: With new sources found, withdrawing article. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP —Kalmah is signed under a major record label, performed internationally, with noted musicians, records produced by well known producers. i'm sure thats enough for the band to be noted. i have included reference links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mv head (talk • contribs) 05:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Keep — I definitely contest this deletion request. Following stringent Wiki rules, yes, this article has problems, but this was already indicated by the "sources" and "unreferenced" tags. An actual AfD I don't think is required at all; I almost feel like, since you've discovered your new hobby, that you're just trying to find articles to delete. I would recommend being more constructive and tagging articles that are blatant abuses of Wikipedia. Kalmah is a band that doesn't have the widespread familiarity of countless magazine interviews, but some *do* exist and are readily available online and the rest of us, as contributors, need to take the time to read and cite them. Aside from the article not being 100% verifiable due to Wikipedia's rules against primary sources, the article is fine as a prototypical encyclopedic reference to the band. This page has existed for five years without having any PROD tags or a discussion of deletion until now. When I get more time in my life, I will personally re-write the entire article with verifiable third-party sources. Kerαunoςcopia 08:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't remotely appreciate the insult regarding my editing activities on Wikipedia, a full re-write would be more than welcome, and I'm sure you already know that just because an article has existed for however long isn't immunity from anything. Fortunately, as I read below it seems that's this is no longer a concern. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I see on your user page you practice civility and to be honest: I think I could practice a little of it on my end, along with maybe some DGAFism. I'm probably too attached to some of these articles and I'd like to consider myself among one of the contributors who wants what's best for Wikipedia. That would include treating others with respect when they obviously have no malicious intent. So I will apologize. I should have spent a little more time digging up more reasons why the article shouldn't be deleted and less of being a jerk. I'll admit at first I thought you were a vandal... probably should've looked into your reasonings a little bit further. Kerαunoςcopia 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Besides what has already been mentioned, the band's most recent album went to #17 on the Finnish album chart. As for sources, Blabbermouth.net alone has plenty of coverage on the band. Prolog (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, an album chart works for me! Thanks for posting it. Will request a close as keep. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:52, 1 November 2009 (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.