Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quebec Connection

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec Connection

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

After an extensive online search, I found one album review for this group, and one upcoming event announcement. The two albums appear to be the only ones released from ProtoMusik Records. !earshot campus radio charts are not among those listed as notable and reliable Wikipedia:Record charts, although they aren't on the to-be-avoided list either. The listing at CBC Music appears to be a self-created profile (there are 47,000 of these on the site). —Anne Delong (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm actually the original creator here, long ago at a time (2006) when Wikipedia's inclusion and sourcing requirements were a lot looser than they are today — at one time, charting on earshot was enough and the one Exclaim! review could carry GNG. But earshot has since been deprecated as a WP:BADCHART because it's not IFPI-certified, one album review in one publication isn't enough by itself to pass NMUSIC #1 anymore, and they really don't have anything better that can be added to get this back up to 2017 standards of notability or sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:31, 16 June 2017 (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.