- 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) 22:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Distinct Nature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have been unable to find information in reliable independent sources about this band. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. The Billboard listing referenced in the article indicates that the group appears to have had a music video on MuchMusic, so that potentially meets WP:MUSICBIO #11. That said, I'm not convinced that's enough to warrant a page given that I'm unable to find any other information on the band in reliable sources that would satisfy any of the guideline's other criteria, or WP:GNG. gongshow talk 08:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm with Gongshow — getting playlisted on MuchMusic would certainly pass NMUSIC #11 if the article were sourced properly, but it's not enough to get the band an automatic inclusion freebie if apart from the nominal playlisting confirmation they're so unsourceable otherwise that we can't even actually provide the band members' names (and as far as I can tell their names have never been in the article at all!) And even on a ProQuest search, I can't find any stronger sourcing either — I can find a few glancing acknowledgements of their existence in pro forma lists of "this week's new releases in record stores", but I can find nothing which constitutes substantive coverage about them. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Couldn't find enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 19:32, 18 June 2017 (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.