Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Bush Party

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) 08:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Bush Party[edit]

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

I have been unable to find even one reliable, independent, published source to add to this article. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's such little coverage of this subject, at least that I can find, that it's barely distinguishable from a pure hoax. TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like an old promotional article about a band that no one knew about Layla, the remover (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Comment Oh my God, is this an old article. How has it lived for so long? Layla, the remover (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, this was created at a very different time in Wikipedia's history; there was a time when all it actually took to get a band's article kept was the ability to nominally verify (e.g. via their own primary source web page or a fansite) that they actually existed and weren't a total hoax — but we didn't yet know what we know now about how some people created primary source webpages to "verify" the "existence" of a hoax. WP:NMUSIC quite rightly has been tightened up a lot since then, however, and nothing here meets the standards that apply today. (To answer Layla's question, lots of old articles are lingering around that fall on the wrong side of the inclusion rules as they stand today — but they can't actually be listed for deletion until somebody notices them.) In a ProQuest search, I found zero reliable source coverage to salvage this with; the only hit I got, in fact, was referring to the generic concept of a party in the Canadian bush, not to a band named "Canadian Bush Party". And WaybackMachine appears to have archived only the front splash page and not any of the site's former content — so there isn't even any content there for us to run through the bullshit detector, such as "the band toured across Canada as an opening act for Young Canadians" or some other statement we could empirically test for verifiability. Under NMUSIC as it stands in 2016, there's just no notability here regardless of whether this was a hoax all along or just a local band that never achieved anything noteworthy — if they did exist, then it's not our role to rectify the historical undercoverage of under-the-radar bands in under-the-radar genres if we have to rely on deadlinked Geocities fansites as the "notability" because real media coverage just wasn't there, and if the Geocities fansite was bullshit all along then it's not our role to promote or aggregate hoaxes. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 13 December 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.