Deletion of The Common Good (political party)

Comment: Apparently these are being discussed as one monolithic bundle even though they haven't been bundled, so I'm not exactly sure where to post this, but perhaps it is apropos to post on "The Common Good". I think {{ping|Doncram|p=}} has a point that the process/"tranche" of 15 AfDs was not the best way to test the waters (one or two would have been good enough for the first "round"). Instead we have this mess. This said, now that they're at AfD it's time to put up some sources! The |just pointing to a policy ("per GNG") will be ignored by the closer without some explanation of the editor's background reasoning. (That's why it's an "|argument to avoid".) {{ping|Jonathan A Jones|Green Cardamom|Mr. Guye|p=}}. So it's fine to argue that it meets the |general notability guideline, but why? Does it have lots of independent, reliable sourcing that discusses the party in depth? I'm seeing a lot of passing mentions in the sources on most of these articles, not a lot of depth. Specifically, as an outsider to this, I want to see discussion of at least three specific sources so I can agree that at least three sources have substantial coverage of the topic such that we can write an actual article on it. Otherwise we're looking at merges, which should be discussed on the articles' talk pages and not AfD if deletion is out of the question. (Two more pings: {{ping|Emeraude|Doktorbuk|p=}}.) czar&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:ATA||WP:GNG)

Comment: clearly notable per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)