86:
81:
90:
113:
73:
178:- 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:
424:
77:
205:
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,
344:
284:
483:
457:
439:
414:
377:
352:
333:
310:
292:
271:
240:
226:
196:
169:
134:
69:
61:
55:
17:
221:
164:
503:
52:
36:
502:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
343:- How on earth did this get nominated for deletion in the first place? It's current, relevant, and expanding.
348:
321:
288:
373:
360:
numerous third party sources establish notability, also as Pburka noted the reason this article fails
280:
49:
124:
129:
179:
453:
217:
160:
302:
232:
188:
479:
435:
410:
369:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
267:
301:
It was in worse shape when initially nominated. I don't blame the nominator for doing it.
306:
277:
not even sure why the hell this is being considered for deletion? link looks fine to me.
236:
192:
467:
399:
383:
361:
329:
255:
121:
449:
365:
210:
153:
475:
431:
406:
324:. A cursory google news search comes back with lots of similar quality results --
320:- There has been a lot of news coverage related to the coalition, for example this
185:
145:
107:
387:
263:
149:
470:
is a valid criterion against which to measure the notability of a musicians'
325:
496:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
259:
182:
390:?!? I'm undecided as to whether I'd actually support it if a
364:
is because it is not a band, but an organization that passes
103:
99:
95:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
506:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
394:deletion argument were presented, but under
425:list of Canada-related deletion discussions
423:: This debate has been included in the
398:deletion argument it's an obvious and
7:
24:
70:Canadian Music Creators Coalition
62:Canadian Music Creators Coalition
231:OK, check it out now. Thanks.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
148:, third-party sources to pass
1:
382:Why on earth would you apply
484:00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
458:00:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
440:23:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
415:23:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
378:15:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
368:'s standards for inclusion.
353:13:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
334:18:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
311:18:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
293:14:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
272:04:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
241:01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
227:01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
197:01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
170:23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
135:23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
56:04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
523:
499:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
466:You actually think
258:because it's not a
442:
428:
295:
283:comment added by
225:
168:
514:
501:
429:
419:
386:to a musicians'
278:
215:
158:
132:
127:
111:
93:
34:
522:
521:
517:
516:
515:
513:
512:
511:
510:
504:deletion review
497:
130:
125:
84:
68:
65:
50:Yamamoto Ichiro
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
520:
518:
509:
508:
491:
489:
488:
487:
486:
461:
460:
443:
417:
380:
355:
337:
336:
315:
314:
313:
275:
274:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
200:
199:
173:
118:
117:
64:
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
519:
507:
505:
500:
494:
493:
492:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
463:
462:
459:
455:
451:
447:
444:
441:
437:
433:
426:
422:
418:
416:
412:
408:
404:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
354:
350:
346:
342:
339:
338:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
294:
290:
286:
282:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
250:
249:
242:
238:
234:
230:
229:
228:
223:
219:
214:
213:
208:
204:
203:
202:
201:
198:
194:
190:
187:
184:
181:
177:
174:
172:
171:
166:
162:
157:
156:
151:
147:
143:
139:
138:
137:
136:
133:
128:
123:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
498:
495:
490:
472:organization
471:
445:
420:
402:
395:
391:
370:TonyBallioni
357:
345:68.43.149.99
340:
317:
285:142.59.43.11
276:
251:
211:
206:
175:
154:
141:
140:
119:
45:
43:
31:
28:
388:lobby group
358:Strong Keep
341:Strong Keep
322:CBC article
318:Strong Keep
279:—Preceding
176:Strong keep
126:NHRHS2010
448:per nom.
450:GreenJoe
281:unsigned
254:. Fails
222:Contribs
212:lifebaka
165:Contribs
155:lifebaka
146:reliable
114:View log
476:Bearcat
468:WP:BAND
432:Bearcat
407:Bearcat
384:WP:BAND
362:WP:BAND
256:WP:Band
207:neutral
122:WP:BAND
87:protect
82:history
446:Delete
366:WP:ORG
264:Pburka
186:source
183:source
180:source
144:. No
142:Delete
120:Fails
91:delete
400:snowy
392:valid
303:Torc2
233:Torc2
209:. --
189:Torc2
152:. --
131:talk
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
480:talk
454:talk
436:talk
421:Note
411:talk
403:keep
396:this
374:talk
349:talk
330:talk
326:Whpq
307:talk
289:talk
268:talk
260:Band
252:Keep
237:talk
218:Talk
193:talk
161:Talk
150:WP:N
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
46:keep
427:.
112:– (
482:)
474:?
456:)
438:)
413:)
405:.
376:)
351:)
332:)
309:)
291:)
270:)
262:.
239:)
220:-
195:)
163:-
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
53:会話
48:.
478:(
452:(
434:(
430:—
409:(
372:(
347:(
328:(
305:(
287:(
266:(
235:(
224:)
216:(
191:(
167:)
159:(
116:)
110:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.