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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Music Creators Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails WP:BAND NHRHS2010 talk 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable, third-party sources to pass WP:N. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - The article kind of sucks, and the list of members is unnecessary, but the group is definitely notable. I found these three articles in about five minutes of looking: source source source Torc2 (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first link isn't really about the organization, but the other two look fine. Assuming that the latter two get put on the article, neutral. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, check it out now. Thanks. Torc2 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Fails WP:Band because it's not a Band. Pburka (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not even sure why the hell this is being considered for deletion? link looks fine to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.43.11 (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • It was in worse shape when initially nominated. I don't blame the nominator for doing it. Torc2 (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - There has been a lot of news coverage related to the coalition, for example this CBC article. A cursory google news search comes back with lots of similar quality results -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - How on earth did this get nominated for deletion in the first place? It's current, relevant, and expanding. 68.43.149.99 (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep numerous third party sources establish notability, also as Pburka noted the reason this article fails WP:BAND is because it is not a band, but an organization that passes WP:ORG's standards for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Why on earth would you apply WP:BAND to a musicians' lobby group?!? I'm undecided as to whether I'd actually support it if a valid deletion argument were presented, but under this deletion argument it's an obvious and snowy keep. Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GreenJoe (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You actually think WP:BAND is a valid criterion against which to measure the notability of a musicians' organization? Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2008 (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.