Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Canada 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 keep. (non-admin closure) xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The Canada Party

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not seeing significant coverage, few mentions in passing, some on social media. Seems to fail WP:NORG/GNG. Possibly the related book is notable, and this could redirect there, but nobody created the article about the book yet. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  00:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment found sources: and . Not quite enough for a keep vote for me, but close. buidhe 03:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not bad, thanks. Maybe a bit more and we can salvage this. Which is always preferable to just blowing stuff up. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Another WP:POINTy AfD after a PROD was shot down. And the edit of Buidhe proves that the deletion-requests were based on a faulty WP:BEFORE. The Banner  talk 21:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:NEXIST. "Maybe a bit more and we can salvage this" means that Piotrus is using PROD and AfD to motivate other editors to find sources for whatever article he happens to run across that day. This is an inappropriate use of the process, because it wastes other editors' time. WP:NEXIST says that editors should consider the possible existence of reliable sources before they nominate for deletion. If you now believe that sources may exist, then NEXIST suggests that you should withdraw the nomination and stop wasting people's time. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is fair to Piotrus. NEXIST is for when sources do exist, not when they might exist. Burden is on those seeking to keep disputed content to demonstrate consensus for it. b<b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 01:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. NEXIST applies to bad nominations when sources are known to exist but are not used (AFDNOTCLEANUP etc.). If the sources 'may' exist, the may also 'not exist', toss a coin. In such a case, per WP:V, the burden is on the article's creator and anyone who wishes to keep it. So far only Buidhe has found new sources, and both of us seem to concur they are a good start, but not enough yet. While editors voting 'keep' seem to ignore this article entirely and just criticize the fact that it was nominated, plus engage in WP:NPA (discussing fellow editors and not the article). This is neither constructive, nor, per WP:NOTAVOTE, even helpful in this AfD at all. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, I found this:, which provides a decent amount of info, and which, combined with the sources found by Buidhe, pushes the article over the GNG mark in my opinion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.