Campism: The sourcing in the article is as follows: Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  New Politics (1) Why not?  For sake of argument, why not?  Seems to be about the subject of campism ✔ Yes New Politics (2) Why not?  For sake of argument, why not?  Seems to be about the subject of campism ✔ Yes Negation Magazine Why not?  ~ I'm somewhat skeptical; this looks more like a group blog than a magazine with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking.  This discusses the third camp during the cold war.  It doesn't discuss the term "campism" in a significant way.  ✘ No Democratic Socialists of America Why not?  This is the blog of a political organization.  It also appears to have the standard opinion piece disclaimer of "The views and opinions presented in Socialist Forum reflect those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of DSA".  This does not discuss the term "campism" in a meaningful way, though it does go into the history of the Trotskyist third camp .  ✘ No Fidel Castro's speech to the U.N. ?  Cannot tell, since the link is broken, and the archive doesn't actually point to the speech.  If this is merely a political speech to the United Nations by Castro, that isn't the sort of thing that makes a WP:RS .  ?  Source link is broken.  ✘ No Third World Quarterly Why not?  Why not?  While this gives historical coverage of the concept of "third-worldism", it doesn't so much as mention the concept of "campism".  ✘ No Open Democracy Why not?  Per WP:RSOPINION , Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces... are rarely reliable for statements of fact .  ?  Moot as clearly not reliable.  ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  What this brings us is two sources from the same group publication (New Politics), but WP:SIGCOV notes that [m]ultiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability .  As such, we don't have multiple independent reliable sources based on the citations in the article itself.  Outside of this, I was able to find some coverage of the term "campism", but it was entirely from unreliable sources like Counterpunch ( RSP entry ) and Paul Mason's substack (a blog ), or from sources that had nothing to do with the descriptor as it pertains to third world theory ( Hindustan Times ).  In light of this, and the history of the term, I would advocate that the article be blanked-and-redirected to third camp , which seems to cover the relevant concept within third worldism.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Red-tailed hawk : Thank you for your notes!  I've updated the article to use several more scholarly and WP:NEWSORG sources (and fixed the Castro link).  I would strongly oppose deletion: I think the article's sources, at present, meet WP:GNG .  SocDoneLeft ( talk ) 07:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per SocDoneLeft and added references.  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 11:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- Not only are the sources already in the article sufficient to meet the GNG, but there are other quality sources, just for instance: [62] .  Central and Adams ( talk ) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify — This article is poorly formatted and seemingly miscontextualizes sources to articulate this topic via an almost exclusively Trotskyist view.  This topic itself is fairly notable, but many of the people who employ the term "campism" are not Trotskyists.  SociusMono1976 ( talk ) 15:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify is not a direct outcome of a deletion discussion.  Per WP:Draftify the route from AfD to draftspace is that the article is deleted (because the subject is not notable) and then someone requests undeletion to draft space in order to try to improve it: Articles may be moved to become a draft as a result of a deletion discussion, indirectly following deletion and a request for undeletion.  If the topic is notable, as you say that it is, it's not a candidate for deletion and therefore not for draftification via AfD.  Central and Adams ( talk ) 16:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With respect to Draftify is not a direct outcome of a deletion discussion , it can be.  The deletion policy is quite clear that Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards , may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement .  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:30, 21 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep