Deletion of Community Living Ontario (2nd nomination)

Comment: yes, really. An article was started as advertising for and by this organization without good sources. Now sources are said to be found, in articles whose headlines don't mention this group and that can not be independently evaluated. I did read the book citation. Chupik does in fact make that assertion about the "ontario association for community living." I understand the name has changed. Does that name change imply that the org is no longer influential, or important? Not clear to me. But either way, I'm not sure if an academic paper (that book after all is just a binding of a bunch of related  academic papers) that asserts notability for a previous iteration of this group, would be sufficient for that previous iteration even under . At any rate, that's my take. I'll let others chime in or not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The article lists multiple sources, with non-trivial mentions of this organization. There's enough there to establish a presumption of notability as per the |general notability guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The multiple sources all one magazine called "Community Action" which appears to be some kind of trade publication (plus a press release). This does not establish notability, as per the 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)