Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Canada Party (2nd nomination)

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. This time, can the sources brought up in the discussion find their way into the article? Otherwise, we might be back for AFD3 soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Canada Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Still appears to fail WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions, non-notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question 3 sources were raised in the previous AFD, which as a unanimous Keep, User:Iljhgtn. What are your issues with each of those. Nfitz (talk)
Comment/Reply, of those, I would say that maybe one counts. The other is a YouTube short stunt video, and one is a link to buy the book these guys seem to be pushing. Seems to me that AfD did not sufficiently look at the source quality. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn, I believe Nfitz was asking you about the sources in the previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Canada Party. I've relisted those below, along with a couple more. —siro χ o 08:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources from last AFD ([1], [2][3]) definitely demonstrate this subject meets GNG. There's also more stuff out there like [4], [5] to contribute to GNG, as well as some less independent sources like [6][7][8] —siro χ o 08:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per siroxo, looks like plenty of RS material to work with here. (If article is kept I am happy to work on improving it so we don't end up back here in 2026; just ping me.) -- Visviva (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources provided definitely meet SIGCOV. AryKun (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2023 (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.