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. MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kai (Canadian singer)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim to passage of WP:NMUSIC, and no reliable source coverage to support it. All of her releases to date have been as the "feat." performer on other artists' singles -- but that's not an NMUSIC pass for an artist who has no releases as the lead performer -- or as the songwriter of songs which other artists recorded as album tracks, but did not release as singles -- which is not a WP:COMPOSER pass. And the sourcing here is entirely to blogs and discographies and chart listings, with no evidence of coverage in real media shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which any musician is entitled to have an article the moment she's been a guest performer on one other musician's recording -- it's an encyclopedia, on which reliable source coverage that verifies an NMUSIC pass is required for a musician to earn inclusion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bearcat is probably right that she isn't Wiki-notable yet, but this is likely just a case of WP:TOOSOON. I came across a rave concert review from a November 2015 Exclaim! that more or less says as much: "Kai's got it. She's may not be quite ready for arenas yet, but she's bigger than the stage she played last night, and if the set was any indication, it won't be long before she's ready for the big time." [1] For what it's worth—not much—I also found a House and Home magazine profile.[2] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. As soon as there is sufficient coverage of this individual in reliable sources, the article can be recreated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article was created in 2012, and she has sufficient credits to meet GNG. While in any of the individual categories (lead singer, composer, etc.) she may be a bit short individually, as a composite, she meets general GNG for reliable, third-party notability. Indie performers do not, in general, have the same level of media coverage as mainsteam pop music, but she's worked with some relatively big names. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is met by the quality and volume of referencing present in the article, not by unsourced or poorly sourced claims of notability that aren't supported by proper sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources in the article, and measurables (vocalist of chart topping single) seem to be sufficient for an article. --Jayron 32 02:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources in the article? Where? It's all blogs and primary sources, with zero evidence of media coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a biography of her. I'm pretty sure they are generally pretty reliable. Also, the article doesn't need to cite any sources to be kept. The sources just need to exist somewhere in the world. Here's an interview in a reliable publication. Here's a TV show episode exploring her home. I have never heard of this singer in my life, but 30 seconds with Google turns up enough to indicate to me that there's enough out there to support an article. --Jayron 32 14:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC is generally pretty reliable, yes — but the "Artists" section of CBC Music falls outside of the "generally", as it's a section of their website where any artist who has chosen to upload music for streaming on the site gets to upload their own self-penned marketing bio to accompany it. So that page doesn't represent coverage being conferred on her by the CBC — it's a part of the CBC's website where she's allowed to redistribute her own self-published EPK content about herself. If she were getting covered in CBC Music's main front-page newsfeed, then that would count toward notability, but her self-penned and self-uploaded bio being present in the "Artists" section of the service does not. Aesthetic Magazine also counts for nothing; it's not a real, established publication, but a WordPress blog. And House & Home isn't helping, either: a musician gets an article when media are covering her in the context of her music, not when media are covering her in the context of her taste in furniture: the owner of a hot dog stand could get a videoclip on that magazine's website if his taste in home decor were interesting to them, so it doesn't bolster notability as such. So no, you haven't shown any sources that help at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. I am not convinced that the sources brought up in this AfD amount to sufficient coverage for GNG. Her discography entirely consists of songs where she was not the lead singer, so the chart positions are unable to establish notability. SST flyer 10:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.