Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vive le Canada (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 delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vive le Canada

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

Non-notable website, unsourced since creation in 2005 (except for a link to the site itself). I can't find any mention of it in reliable sources. Previously nominated for deletion in 2006, it was only kept that time because of a bad-faith nomination. Robofish (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, the original nomination was a bad faith attack edit by someone who was actually impersonating the site's owner, so it was (rightly under the circumstances) closed as a keep. However, it's also true that by current standards of notability and reliable sourcing, which are both much tighter now than the loosey-goosey "making it up as we go along" approach that pertained in 2005, this article ain't very good at all. That said, the site does have notable contributors — of the site's six regular "columnists", four of them already have Wikipedia articles and a fifth doesn't yet but probably should — so a notability claim is certainly possible here. On the question of sourcing, however, I'm not having any better luck than Robofish, which means we have a problem. I'm certainly willing to change this to a keep if someone can actually muster up some real live sources, but as things stand right now it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Editors may want to look at this version of the article when looking for sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I connot find sigfnificant coverage in reliable soruces. -- Whpq (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacation^nine 03:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Weak Keep~~ Googling using keywords from this version (Tnx Whpq) reveals multiple hits. ~~At one time it seems to have been quite notable~~. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A massive amount of the page was deleted three edits before deletion was proposed. I have added the content back into the article. I do note that there is a lack of sourcing, but that discussion was based on a different article than in stands now. Frist afd was a good laugh to look at, otherwise a source showing if the org is still active would be nice. I see it as an acceptable article. Outback the koala (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - An opinion that the article is acceptable without any evidence to support its inclusion isn't helpful. -- Whpq (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Independent sources are required. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2012 (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.